market_size

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already disclose read-only and open-world behavior. The description adds context about specific sources and pattern matching, which is useful, but does not mention limitations such as potential data unavailability or the format of returned estimates. With annotations covering safety, this is adequate but not rich.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes source examples and methodology. Every word contributes information, with no fluff or redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description explains what the tool does but not the input structure details (e.g., what 'context' contains or the role of 'sector') or the output format. Since there is no output schema, the agent would benefit from knowing the shape of returns. However, for a read-only lookup tool with clear purpose, it is minimally sufficient.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% for the top-level parameter, and the description does not mention any parameter names or how 'context' should be populated. The required 'sector' is only indirectly referenced by the word 'industry'. The schema property names are self-explanatory but the description adds little semantic value beyond what the names imply.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states a specific action ('Finds market size and CAGR figures') and a specific resource ('for an industry'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying analyst/research sources and a methodology ('pattern matching'). It is unambiguous and actionable.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies clear usage: use when you need market size or CAGR for an industry. It mentions the types of sources and the method, giving context, but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or compare with sibling tools like 'industry_overview' or 'company_profile'.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.